|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||atc facility : blm|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 2000|
msl bound upper : 2000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : wri|
|Operator||general aviation : corporate|
|Make Model Name||Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng|
|Flight Phase||landing : missed approach|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : instrument
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 90|
flight time total : 3000
flight time type : 200
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
|ATC Facility||procedure or policy : unspecified|
Upon arrival to the vicinity of blm we were cleared for a VOR approach and were not able to get below ceiling at MDA. We were then instructed to go direct to casvi intersection and hold. Immediately after that we were instructed to go direct cabby and hold. I feel that the intersection names are confusing and one of the names should be changes. It may sound simple to ask for a spelling of the intersection from the controller, but in the world of busy nj, the chance of getting a word in edgewise is slim. Also, being from a different part of the country, the controller pronounced the intersection differently, and I had a hard time understanding. My copilot and I spent some valuable time trying to understand the controller and distinguishing cabby from casvi. Two more contrasting names might keep another pilot from holding in the wrong spot due to a controller's workload and pronunciation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: when the missed approach was executed, they were cleared direct to cabby intersection. Cabby intersection is not depicted on the VOR a chart, only on the sdf runway 14 chart. Approach controller did not give flight crew a clue that the intersection was on a chart different that the one in use. The entire operation required a lot of scrambling in the cockpit as 3 different charts had to be scanned to locate the intxns involved.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLT CREW HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING INTERSECTIONS IN THE BLM AREA.
Narrative: UPON ARR TO THE VICINITY OF BLM WE WERE CLRED FOR A VOR APCH AND WERE NOT ABLE TO GET BELOW CEILING AT MDA. WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED TO GO DIRECT TO CASVI INTXN AND HOLD. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO GO DIRECT CABBY AND HOLD. I FEEL THAT THE INTXN NAMES ARE CONFUSING AND ONE OF THE NAMES SHOULD BE CHANGES. IT MAY SOUND SIMPLE TO ASK FOR A SPELLING OF THE INTXN FROM THE CTLR, BUT IN THE WORLD OF BUSY NJ, THE CHANCE OF GETTING A WORD IN EDGEWISE IS SLIM. ALSO, BEING FROM A DIFFERENT PART OF THE COUNTRY, THE CTLR PRONOUNCED THE INTXN DIFFERENTLY, AND I HAD A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING. MY COPLT AND I SPENT SOME VALUABLE TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CTLR AND DISTINGUISHING CABBY FROM CASVI. TWO MORE CONTRASTING NAMES MIGHT KEEP ANOTHER PLT FROM HOLDING IN THE WRONG SPOT DUE TO A CTLR'S WORKLOAD AND PRONUNCIATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: WHEN THE MISSED APCH WAS EXECUTED, THEY WERE CLRED DIRECT TO CABBY INTERSECTION. CABBY INTXN IS NOT DEPICTED ON THE VOR A CHART, ONLY ON THE SDF RWY 14 CHART. APCH CTLR DID NOT GIVE FLT CREW A CLUE THAT THE INTXN WAS ON A CHART DIFFERENT THAT THE ONE IN USE. THE ENTIRE OPERATION REQUIRED A LOT OF SCRAMBLING IN THE COCKPIT AS 3 DIFFERENT CHARTS HAD TO BE SCANNED TO LOCATE THE INTXNS INVOLVED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.